Defense Cries Foul In Wentworth Trial

February 20, 1990|By Bill Grady, Merrill Goozner and John O`Brien.

The news media went into a bit of a tizzy last month when a juror reported she was threatened during the trial of nine Chicago police officers accused of accepting bribes to protect gamblers in their South Side district. What didn`t get much attention at the time, though, was the unexplained breach of an agreement between prosecutors, defense lawyers and U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle over how best to respond to the threat. As a result, defense lawyers are asking that the guilty verdicts be thrown out.

The juror was one of 11 members of an unusual jury that ended several days of sometimes rancorous and bizarre deliberations in federal court by convicting seven of the Wentworth District officers and five others on bribery charges. Two officers were acquitted.

But the furor over the deliberations is likely to live on in post-trial appeals, which raise questions about the conduct of the U.S. attorney`s office and the FBI.

What particularly rankles defense lawyers is what happened on the Friday night after the threat was reported. During a three-way telephone

conversation, Norgle agreed with defense lawyer Thomas Breen and federal prosecutor Mark Rotert that the U.S. Marshals Service would contact the juror and ask her to come in for a 10:30 a.m. hearing on Saturday, according to an affidavit filed in court by Breen.

Instead, three FBI agents, including the agent who supervised the Wentworth investigation, went to the juror`s home.

Nan Nolan, one of the defense lawyers, says she and the others were shocked. They contend it was improper to send the FBI, which was an arm of the prosecution.

``The marshals, for sure, would have been more neutral,`` she said.

Defense lawyers are asking Norgle to throw out the verdicts, contending the juror deliberations were tainted by ``illegal, intentional and intrusive`` contact with the FBI. In written arguments filed with the court, Nolan says the visit by the FBI agents ``was at that point illegal, and no less so merely because it was bizarre.``

Rotert says a written response by prosecutors will be filed within a week to 10 days. At the Saturday hearing, he and Acting U.S. Atty. Ira Raphaelson said the FBI agents were sent to begin an investigation into possible jury obstruction. The visit was brief, they said, and the agents were instructed to tell the juror that deputy marshals would give her a ride to the hearing the next day and offer protection if she thought she needed it that night. When she declined, the agents left, according to Rotert. He said the chief concern then was the safety of the juror, not which law enforcement agency to send.

The trial had started in November with 12 jurors and four alternates, but illness and other mishaps reduced their number. All but one of the defendants agreed to an 11-member jury; the one who didn`t gets a new trial.

Safety net on bonds

A Chicago law firm has one of those proverbial ``bad news-good news``

stories for people who purchased $10 million in tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds issued for a hotel project in Provo, Utah.

The bad news, as most of the bondholders now know, is that the bonds are in default. Not only did the hotel developers misrepresent the financial feasibility of the project, but the standby commitment from a consortium of Oklahoma savings and loans that was supposed to guarantee the bonds also was fraudulent.

The good news is that the law firm of Sachnoff & Weaver is getting bond purchasers most of their money back, according to name partner Lowell Sachnoff and Jeffrey T. Gilbert, the firm`s attorney who brought a class-action suit against the underwriters, their law firm, the bond counsel, the City of Provo, the savings and loans, the guarantor-Savings Investment Service Corp., known as SISCorp.-and its directors

In most cases, Gilbert says, people who hold bonds in default are lucky to get back 35 to 45 cents for each $1 invested.

Gilbert, though, won settlements that, with interest, amounted to $10.2 million, which means bondholders should receive about 80 cents of every $1 invested after attorneys` fees are paid.

Sachnoff & Weaver gets a return, too; the firm`s share of the fees and costs approved late last month by a federal judge in Philadelphia is $1.3 million.

Commendations for 3

More to report from the U.S. attorney`s office:

Three of the aforementioned Raphaelson`s prosecutors-Assistant U.S. Attys. Thomas P. Walsh, John H. Newman and John F. Podliska-are being summoned to Washington for honors Thursday. Walsh, chief of the civil division, is receiving a Director`s Award for his success in drug forfeiture cases. Newman and Podliska, who obtained convictions in several financial fraud cases and recouped millions for the government, get Special Commendation Awards.

Meanwhile, Stephen Crocker, 31, is leaving the U.S. attorney`s office, returning to hometown Madison to fulfill a pledge to his expectant wife. Crocker handled the unsuccessful prosecution of failed financial whiz kid William Stoecker, who was charged with bankruptcy fraud.

A Correction.

In the Feb. 6 column, we incorrectly reported that Joseph McGivney sold securities in Illinois without a license. McGivney was charged by the secretary of state`s office with giving investment advice without a license. That charge is pending. The Tribune regrets the error.

- The Chicago-based Defense Research Institute, an association of corporate defense lawyers, has made a $50,000 grant to De Paul University College of Law to endow a scholarship in memory of Thomas J. Weithers Jr., a former president and chairman of the group.